Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#41

Post by eco »

pikma wrote: post #32
cantrevealname wrote: post #27

Are there discoveries or theories from the field of psychology that are (a) not obvious and (b) generally regarded as correct? For example, things like general relativity, continental drift, or evolution from the fields of physics, geology, and biology. Does psychology have anything like that?

Not a psychology researcher, but I think that the Milgram experiment has been fairly well replicated. Please anyone let me know if not. I personally found it to be non-obvious.

Milgram's results are also not as cut and dry as they are usually presented. Obedience rates varied wildly in subsequent variations he ran of the experiment and his initial experiment that got all the attention was a pretty low sample size.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinkin...

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#42

Post by tshirthoodie »

pdonis wrote: post #35
adastra22 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read it. He basically doesn’t address any of the criticism, he just reframes to claim that the experiment was actually testing something different than what we’ve all understood it to be. Maybe that is true. In which case he would be a terrible scientist rather than a fraudulent one. Even so, that still makes the legacy of the SPE false, and one has to wonder why he never corrected the record in the nearly 50…

> the experiment was actually testing something different than what we’ve all understood it to be Even if this is true, whose fault is it? Is it Zimbardo's? Or is it all the academics and media hacks who ran with their own mistaken understanding of what the experiment was actually testing, without bothering to check their understanding against what Zimbardo actually published? (Not to mention all the supporting infor…

>Trying to correct mistaken or intentionally false claims in the media is a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.

Wrong. Merely trying is in-fact incredibly easy to do, but there is no record of Zimbardo taking a single step in that direction. You don't have a case.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#43

Post by pdonis »

tshirthoodie wrote: post #42
pdonis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the experiment was actually testing something different than what we’ve all understood it to be Even if this is true, whose fault is it? Is it Zimbardo's? Or is it all the academics and media hacks who ran with their own mistaken understanding of what the experiment was actually testing, without bothering to check their understanding against what Zimbardo actually published? (Not to mention all the supporting infor…

> Trying to correct mistaken or intentionally false claims in the media is a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Wrong. Merely trying is in-fact incredibly easy to do, but there is no record of Zimbardo taking a single step in that direction. You don't have a case.

> there is no record of Zimbardo taking a single step in that direction

You must be joking. In addition to the peer-reviewed papers he published, he gave media interviews, he testified in Congressional hearings, he published an article in the New York Times Magazine, he published a popular book, he made a PBS series, he made all of the study materials publicly available, he was an expert witness in three trials...

It seems to me that the one who doesn't have a case is you.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#44

Post by Der_Einzige »

cantrevealname wrote: post #27

Are there discoveries or theories from the field of psychology that are (a) not obvious and (b) generally regarded as correct? For example, things like general relativity, continental drift, or evolution from the fields of physics, geology, and biology. Does psychology have anything like that?

Maybe not psychology but a fun one in genetics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_ma...

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#45

Post by jtriangle »

smt88 wrote: post #14
mensetmanusman wrote: post #12

I'm guessing most ted talks reference ""science"" that can't be replicated as well. It's ironic that this of happening immediately before we enter the ai fueled post-truth era.

TED Talks are a disaster in general. Lots of charlatans and bad science. People should treat them aa entertainment, not as a reputable, fact-checked publication of science.

That paper towel guy was right on the money though and I use way less paper towels and use them more effectively now.

No science required, just an old dude who had an idea he wanted to share. That's what TED should be, not anything authoritative or declarative. That is indeed their slogan "ideas worth spreading", they should really stick to that.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#46

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

smt88 wrote: post #14
mensetmanusman wrote: post #12

I'm guessing most ted talks reference ""science"" that can't be replicated as well. It's ironic that this of happening immediately before we enter the ai fueled post-truth era.

TED Talks are a disaster in general. Lots of charlatans and bad science. People should treat them aa entertainment, not as a reputable, fact-checked publication of science.

I have always assumed that they are done for financial gain. Some are entertaining, but you have 18 minutes. How deep can you go? Isn't it more lucrative to use it to push a few talking points?

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#47

Post by thfuran »

pdonis wrote: post #29
enasterosophes wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This doesn't necessarily mean that the whole principle of unquestioning obedience when it comes to being asked to do immoral/unethical acts is false. The article didn't claim that the study's conclusion was false. The article only points out that the study was flawed, and therefore cannot be relied upon to draw any conclusions either way. The article is about replication issues in modern science, not about whether…

> The article didn't claim that the study's conclusion was false. The article only points out that the study was flawed Not "flawed", fraud . Which is a claim that the conclusion is false-- and that the author knew it and published it anyway. That's what "fraud" means in this context. That's an extremely strong claim, which the article does not actually justify. Zimbardo's response, which others upthread have posted…

A scientific paper can be fraudulent without the author knowing that its conclusion is false if it has falsified data or otherwise is known to the author to misrepresent the extent to which the conclusion is supported.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#48

Post by jongjong »

I'm not surprised. I never believed in the "power corrupts" narrative. It's just a cover for an uglier reality that we are ruled by people who want to do evil and corrupt people are selected for positions of power because they can be controlled into enabling and covering for those evil deeds.

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#49

Post by [deleted] »

jongjong wrote: post #48

I'm not surprised. I never believed in the "power corrupts" narrative. It's just a cover for an uglier reality that we are ruled by people who want to do evil and corrupt people are selected for positions of power because they can be controlled into enabling and covering for those evil deeds.

[deleted]

Re: The Stanford Prison Experiment was hugely influential. We learned it was a fraud (2018)

#50

Post by AlbertCory »

nickff wrote: post #25
AlbertCory wrote: post #15

Everyone's heard the stories of how it was "fake." How many of you have actually read Dr. Zimbardo's own response to the debunking? https://www.prisonexp.org/response

His response is informative, and should be read against what I believe to be a stronger case than the OP (and linked from it): https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/2019-letexier.pdf Some of the more damning parts: > "Of the students tested, 81% accurately figured out the experimenter’s hypothesis (that guards would be aggressive and that prisoners would revolt or comply), and 90% predicted that the guards would be “oppre…

>> 81% accurately figured out the experimenter’s hypothesis

so what? Did they get a grade on their participation? I'd bet not. So why would they care what the hypothesis was?

>> The experimenters intervened directly in the experiment, either to give precise instructions, to recall the purposes of the experiment, or to set a general direction.

PZ says they said, "We noticed this morning that you weren't really, you know, lending a hand, and I was wondering if there's anything's wrong… We really want to get you active and involved because the guards have to know that every guard is going to be what we call a “tough guard”… what I mean by tough is [that] you have to be firm, and you have to be in the action… It’s really important… for the workings of the experiment [because] whether or not we can make this thing seem like a prison—which is the aim of the thing—depends largely on the guards’ behavior."

Sorry, but I don't see how this invalidates anything. If some of the guards were just phoning it in and not taking it seriously, they did need a talking-to.

Post reply on HN